Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24228635›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2013

Criteria for the use of omics-based predictors in clinical trials: explanation and elaboration.

Lisa M McShane, Margaret M Cavenagh, Tracy G Lively, David A Eberhard, William L Bigbee, P Mickey Williams, Jill P Mesirov, Mei-Yin C Polley, Kelly Y Kim, James V Tricoli and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

65 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Lisa M McShaneBiometric Research Branch, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Room 5W130, MSC 9735, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892-9735, USA. mcshanel@ctep.nci.nih.gov.
Margaret M Cavenagh
Tracy G Lively
David A Eberhard
William L Bigbee
P Mickey Williams
Jill P Mesirov
Mei-Yin C Polley
Kelly Y Kim
James V Tricoli
Jeremy M G Taylor
Deborah J Shuman
Richard M Simon
James H Doroshow
Barbara A Conley

Funding

Phase 01 Clinical TrialsZIABC011078 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI DOROSHOW, JAMES · 2009 to 2025
$9.0M
GENOMIC ANALYSIS OF MEDULLOBLASTOMASR01CA109467 · NCI · CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL BOSTON · PI MESIROV, JILL P., POMEROY, SCOTT LOREN · 2004 to 2015
$7.3M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA109467
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High-throughput 'omics' technologies that generate molecular profiles for biospecimens have been extensively used in preclinical studies to reveal molecular subtypes and elucidate the biological mechanisms of disease, and in retrospective studies on clinical specimens to develop mathematical models to predict clinical endpoints. Nevertheless, the translation of these technologies into clinical tests that are useful for guiding management decisions for patients has been relatively slow. It can be difficult to determine when the body of evidence for an omics-based test is sufficiently comprehensive and reliable to support claims that it is ready for clinical use, or even that it is ready for definitive evaluation in a clinical trial in which it may be used to direct patient therapy. Reasons for this difficulty include the exploratory and retrospective nature of many of these studies, the complexity of these assays and their application to clinical specimens, and the many potential pitfalls inherent in the development of mathematical predictor models from the very high-dimensional data generated by these omics technologies. Here we present a checklist of criteria to consider when evaluating the body of evidence supporting the clinical use of a predictor to guide patient therapy. Included are issues pertaining to specimen and assay requirements, the soundness of the process for developing predictor models, expectations regarding clinical study design and conduct, and attention to regulatory, ethical, and legal issues. The proposed checklist should serve as a useful guide to investigators preparing proposals for studies involving the use of omics-based tests. The US National Cancer Institute plans to refer to these guidelines for review of proposals for studies involving omics tests, and it is hoped that other sponsors will adopt the checklist as well.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchClinical Trials as TopicGenomicsGuidelines as TopicHigh-Throughput Screening AssaysHumansPrecision MedicineReproducibility of ResultsResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID24228635
PMCPMC3852338

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.